sovereign immunity

Article 300 makes the Union and States liable to the same extent as the East India Company was before 1858. In P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State (Calcutta Supreme Court, 1861), a distinction was drawn between sovereign and non-sovereign functions. In Kasturilal (1964) the Supreme Court denied compensation for gold seized by the police and lost, because the police act in exercise of sovereign power.

Later cases narrowed the immunity sharply. Vidhyawati (1962) held the State liable for a government driver's negligence, and N. Nagendra Rao (1994) said the immunity is outdated in a welfare State. For violation of fundamental rights, sovereign immunity is no defence to compensation under Articles 32 and 226 (constitutional tort).

Example

After Nagendra Rao, the State could not plead sovereign immunity to escape liability for goods negligently lost while in its custody.

In Indian law

• Article 300, Constitution of India
• Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., 1964 INSC 199: no liability for police negligence in a sovereign function
• N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of A.P., 1994 INSC 360: immunity confined to primary sovereign functions

See also

constitutional tort · vicarious liability · sovereignty

Read more in the study notes

• Judicial control: public and private law remedies, writ procedure and ouster clauses (Administrative Law)
• Government contracts and state liability: the administrative-law angle (Administrative Law)
• Public corporations and public undertakings: status, classification, liability and control (Administrative Law)
• Constitutional provisions regulating trade and competition (Competition Law)
• The Competition Act, 2002: salient features, key definitions and amendments (Competition Law)
• State liability in tort and contract (Constitutional Law II)